Catholic and libertarian? Pope’s top adviser says they’re incompatible

[minkymurph]

I think one should be careful not to confuse the common good with an individual’s good.

Suppose a rich businessman says, the government has no right to tax me even a penny because it is my right to hang on to the fruits of my own labour, every last one of them.

OK, but the guys he’s employing, they’ve been educated in schools payed by taxpayer money. The trucks that deliver his goods, run on roads payed by taxpayer money, when his shop catches fire, he expects fire service, police what have you. Many of his customers are on welfare. The list continues.

If he were to employ only home schooled employees, and find other ways of not touching any government infrastructure at any point, then I would willingly concede, let him keep the fruits of his labour. But please, all this halfway house stuff is just a self service mentality. Most libertarians are only libertarians when and as far as it suits their personal benefit and not a step further. That’s precisely what you’re asking for when you build a system based on greed. Greedy people only look out for themselves and not for the others.

I don’t think libertarianism confuses the good of the individual and the common good. LIbertarianism rejects any notion of a common good. Outright rejection is not what I would describe as confusion. I don’t think there is any confusion on the part of libertarians. Libertarians don’t subscribe to a common good because it does not suit their agenda. That is why I would argue libertarianism conflicts with Catholicism. Libertarianism not only rejects any concept of the common good which Catholicism does not, but promotes primarily the good of wealthy individuals which Catholicism does not. I fail to see how primarily promoting the good of only the most wealthy individuals can be held compatible with the Catholic concept of a common good. Anyone who argues libertarianism promotes the good of all individuals in society is, at best, seeing it through rose-coloured glasses.

I stand by what I said in that people are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Enjoying the fruits of ones labour does not constitute an entitlement not to pay taxes. I have never understood why libertarians have such a big issue with taxes other than greed. The government does have a right to tax people if they derive benefit from those taxes. It cannot be considered compatible with Catholicism to say, ‘I should reap the benefits of the taxation system but not contribute to it.’

I stand by what I said the government should facilitate business, but the term I used was unnecessary taxes. Facilitating business does not demand no taxation. Facilitating business in my view requires regulation but administered in a manner that assists business to play by just rules and keep to the rules so society as a whole, and not just the individual in control of business, can benefit. Where is the common good if measures are introduced to facilitate business if only a handful of wealthy people stand to benefit? I fail to see how a doctrine that determines this can be held to be compatible with Catholicism. If anyone argues libertarianism does not determine this they are, at best, seeing libertarianism through rose coloured glasses.

 

[ProVobis]

The rich use the free market for their own self-interest, not for the interest of competition.

A free market means an entity is also free to fail, something this and other governments don’t seem to be allowing. Printing money for the rich as the first benefactors definitely is immoral. But I understand libertarianism doesn’t advocate that, in fact opposes it.

And contrary to what you might have heard, Ben Bernanke did not really promise to toss money out of helicopters; it would have taken a heck of a lot of helicopters to help all the poor in this country for even a day.

 

[TEPO]

A free market means an entity is also free to fail, something this and other governments don’t seem to be allowing. Printing money for the rich as the first benefactors definitely is immoral. But I understand libertarianism doesn’t advocate that, in fact opposes it.

Nice posts here. I’ve enjoyed them all.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t think libertarianism confuses the good of the individual and the common good. LIbertarianism rejects any notion of a common good. Outright rejection is not what I would describe as confusion. I don’t think there is any confusion on the part of libertarians. Libertarians don’t subscribe to a common good because it does not suit their agenda. That is why I would argue libertarianism conflicts with Catholicism. Libertarianism not only rejects any concept of the common good which Catholicism does not, but promotes primarily the good of wealthy individuals which Catholicism does not. I fail to see how primarily promoting the good of only the most wealthy individuals can be held compatible with the Catholic concept of a common good. Anyone who argues libertarianism promotes the good of all individuals in society is, at best, seeing it through rose-coloured glasses.

I stand by what I said in that people are entitled to the fruits of their labour. Enjoying the fruits of ones labour does not constitute an entitlement not to pay taxes. I have never understood why libertarians have such a big issue with taxes other than greed. The government does have a right to tax people if they derive benefit from those taxes. It cannot be considered compatible with Catholicism to say, ‘I should reap the benefits of the taxation system but not contribute to it.’

I stand by what I said the government should facilitate business, but the term I used was unnecessary taxes. Facilitating business does not demand no taxation. Facilitating business in my view requires regulation but administered in a manner that assists business to play by just rules and keep to the rules so society as a whole, and not just the individual in control of business, can benefit. Where is the common good if measures are introduced to facilitate business if only a handful of wealthy people stand to benefit? I fail to see how a doctrine that determines this can be held to be compatible with Catholicism. If anyone argues libertarianism does not determine this they are, at best, seeing libertarianism through rose coloured glasses.

Well said and true! Also your earlier post 118.

Pure libertarianism is exclusively focused on protecting the individual’s rights in the economic and social spheres. This conflicts with the Catholic notion of the common good, both economically and socially. To me, libertarianism goes too far, kind of the way the excessive state intervention and control of socialism goes too far on the left. We need a happy medium. The state should not completely regulate the economy to impose equality and hinder individual prosperity, but it should provide a safety net and support for the poor. I don’t believe that trickle down economics will ever produce enough wealth for enough people. We need to have a fair, reasonable progressive tax rate (I wouldn’t put a millionaire any higher than 35-40% - the middle class around 10%) and maintain social programs to enable the less well off to live in a decent manner. We will always have the poor with us. I also worry about the social consequences of libertarian individualism, especially with abortion and gay marriage. This “hands off” social individualism is equally opposed to the common good and stability of society.

That all said, I still think the various forces of libertarianism in the West at this time can prove to be effective at reducing excess government intervention where it has overgrown its usefulness. Also I suspect that a lot of “libertarians” are really just conservatives at heart. It would be almost impossible to run a Western country on pure libertarian principles. In practice, I think these people would end up being more moderate or “conservative.” And for whatever reason, they attract voters.

And remember, there aren’t a lot of good “Catholic” options on the other side of the political spectrum either. We haven’t really touched on that problem.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I don’t think libertarianism confuses the good of the individual and the common good. LIbertarianism rejects any notion of a common good. Outright rejection is not what I would describe as confusion.

From my conversations with libertarians this is not so. They claim, if everybody pursues his own good, the common good will also be served automatically, ie, the best of all possible worlds is a world in which everybody first and foremost seeks their own advantage. Thus they believe that greed can make the world a better place for everybody. This does not 100 % transalte into, but the sentiment gets dovetailed into such economic policies as trickle-down economics. If you make the rich even richer the poor will eventually get richer too because that wealth will eventually trickle down and everybody is thus better off. Interestlingly they deny the opposite trickle up effect, if you help the poor, that extra money gets spent and also trickles up to the rich.

 

[minkymurph]

A free market means an entity is also free to fail, something this and other governments don’t seem to be allowing. Printing money for the rich as the first benefactors definitely is immoral. But I understand libertarianism doesn’t advocate that, in fact opposes it.

And contrary to what you might have heard, Ben Bernanke did not really promise to toss money out of helicopters; it would have taken a heck of a lot of helicopters to help all the poor in this country for even a day.

I have never heard of Ben Bemanke let alone heard anything to the contrary. Who is he?

The fact that libertarianism opposes certain things does not in itself make it compatible with Catholicism. Even though libertarianism claims to oppose certain things, the theory itself is weighted in favour of those who own the most. The central themes of libertarianism are protection of property rights, accumulation of property to empower oneself and non-interference. Libertarianism acknowledges ownership is power yet the theory ignores interference and coercion that results as a consequence of disparity of power. The reason is because the theory is intentionally weighted in favour of those who own the most, and hence have the most power. I don’t see how it can be argued this is just and compatible with Catholicism.

 

[minkymurph]

Well said and true! Also your earlier post 118.

Pure libertarianism is exclusively focused on protecting the individual’s rights in the economic and social spheres. This conflicts with the Catholic notion of the common good, both economically and socially. To me, libertarianism goes too far, kind of the way the excessive state intervention and control of socialism goes too far on the left. We need a happy medium. The state should not completely regulate the economy to impose equality and hinder individual prosperity, but it should provide a safety net and support for the poor. I don’t believe that trickle down economics will ever produce enough wealth for enough people. We need to have a fair, reasonable progressive tax rate (I wouldn’t put a millionaire any higher than 35-40% - the middle class around 10%) and maintain social programs to enable the less well off to live in a decent manner. We will always have the poor with us. I also worry about the social consequences of libertarian individualism, especially with abortion and gay marriage. This “hands off” social individualism is equally opposed to the common good and stability of society.

That all said, I still think the various forces of libertarianism in the West at this time can prove to be effective at reducing excess government intervention where it has overgrown its usefulness. Also I suspect that a lot of “libertarians” are really just conservatives at heart. It would be almost impossible to run a Western country on pure libertarian principles. In practice, I think these people would end up being more moderate or “conservative.” And for whatever reason, they attract voters.

And remember, there aren’t a lot of good “Catholic” options on the other side of the political spectrum either. We haven’t really touched on that problem.

This is pretty much were I stand - and thanks for the compliment.

 

[Michael_C]

Apologies if that is what you thought I meant. It’s not exactly what I meant. The rich use the free market for their own self-interest, not for the interest of competition. There is evidence they will work against the free market and use their influence with government as a weapon against it. I can quote you a case I studied as a student as evidence of this. There was a big hoo-ha about it in my part of the world because the connotation was a government minister attempted to use the media and his position to manipulate the judiciary.

Here’s a good example of corporations using government to squash competition.

dailysignal.com/2014/06/09/3-major-u-s-airlines-fight-cancel-cheaper-international-travel/

Are the Department of transportation and U.S. officials making sure things are safe or are they doing the bidding of their donors?

 

[minkymurph]

From my conversations with libertarians this is not so. They claim, if everybody pursues his own good, the common good will also be served automatically, ie, the best of all possible worlds is a world in which everybody first and foremost seeks their own advantage. Thus they believe that greed can make the world a better place for everybody. This does not 100 % transalte into, but the sentiment gets dovetailed into such economic policies as trickle-down economics. If you make the rich even richer the poor will eventually get richer too because that wealth will eventually trickle down and everybody is thus better off. Interestlingly they deny the opposite trickle up effect, if you help the poor, that extra money gets spent and also trickles up to the rich.

That may be so but libertarianism does not require consensus on the common good and it cannot be said this is compatible with Catholicism. The theory is also flawed in that the common good can only be served automatically by, at a minimal level, overlapping consensus on major issues. The absence of overlapping consensus results in conflict on major issues. Libertarian theory little to offer as a solution to conflicting concepts of good and values.

Another flaw of libertarianism is they do they define what constitutes inference or coercion with any degree of clarity. That being the case, the theory does not provide solutions to impediments to the best possible worlds or pursuance of the individual common good other than, by what you imply, making the rich richer.

If the libertarian claim is everyone will eventually become better off as a consequence of the rich getting richer, they would need to provide evidence to that effect and not mere theory. The worst poverty I witnessed in Europe was in Monaco.

The theme of the thread is whether Catholicism is compatible with libertarianism? Not is the free market a superior economic system? ‘Everybody first and foremost seeks their own advantage,’ and ‘greed can make the world a better place for everyone’ are not to my knowledge concepts that are compatible with Catholicism. Making the rich richer and the trickle down effect may make some people better off, but how and to what extent is determined by those who control the wealth. If one concurs with the concept a minority of elites should control the wealth, then one would not have an issue with trickle down economies. I’m not convinced Catholicism sees it that way. Neither do I think Catholicism endorses greed on the pretext of making everyone better off - but off course not as well off as the elites controlling the wealth.

There’s one thing I don’t understand. If libertarians argue wealth will trickle down when the rich get richer, does this mean they think the minimum wage should increase in proportion to profit. Are they against the imposition of the minimum wage because they want to pay people more than the minimum wage think if they have a good year in business and the government is stopping them? Or is is because they would prefer to pay less than the imposed minimum which would be below the poverty line? If the latter is the case, I fail to see how the rich getting richer makes things better for everyone as those in minimum wage jobs derive no benefit from the rich getting richer as a consequence of higher profits.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t believe that trickle down economics will ever produce enough wealth for enough people.

Neither do I, and to be convinced I would need hard evidence it is plausible rather than a Utopian notion of what people would like to happen.

Also I suspect that a lot of "libertarians" are really just conservatives at heart.

Margaret Thatcher was an example of a ‘libertarian’ who was a conservative at heart. She believed in the free market but was a social conservative. Now her policies DEFINITELY conflicted with Catholicism, and the Catholic Primate of Ireland made this clear on more than one occasion.

 

[pnewton]

I just came across this article. It looks like the only libertarian criticism was economic. This would not represent any new teaching as the Church has always opposed unrestricted capitalism. As far as Ayn Rand is concerned, I would think that would be a rather obvious contradiction to the call of Christ to charity.

 

[Michael_C]

That may be so but libertarianism does not require consensus on the common good and it cannot be said this is compatible with Catholicism. The theory is also flawed in that the common good can only be served automatically by, at a minimal level, overlapping consensus on major issues. The absence of overlapping consensus results in conflict on major issues. Libertarian theory little to offer as a solution to conflicting concepts of good and values.

Another flaw of libertarianism is they do they define what constitutes inference or coercion with any degree of clarity. That being the case, the theory does not provide solutions to impediments to the best possible worlds or pursuance of the individual common good other than, by what you imply, making the rich richer.

If the libertarian claim is everyone will eventually become better off as a consequence of the rich getting richer, they would need to provide evidence to that effect and not mere theory. The worst poverty I witnessed in Europe was in Monaco.

The theme of the thread is whether Catholicism is compatible with libertarianism? Not is the free market a superior economic system? ‘Everybody first and foremost seeks their own advantage,’ and ‘greed can make the world a better place for everyone’ are not to my knowledge concepts that are compatible with Catholicism. Making the rich richer and the trickle down effect may make some people better off, but how and to what extent is determined by those who control the wealth. If one concurs with the concept a minority of elites should control the wealth, then one would not have an issue with trickle down economies. I’m not convinced Catholicism sees it that way. Neither do I think Catholicism endorses greed on the pretext of making everyone better off - but off course not as well off as the elites controlling the wealth.

There’s one thing I don’t understand. If libertarians argue wealth will trickle down when the rich get richer, does this mean they think the minimum wage should increase in proportion to profit. Are they against the imposition of the minimum wage because they want to pay people more than the minimum wage think if they have a good year in business and the government is stopping them? Or is is because they would prefer to pay less than the imposed minimum which would be below the poverty line? If the latter is the case, I fail to see how the rich getting richer makes things better for everyone as those in minimum wage jobs derive no benefit from the rich getting richer as a consequence of higher profits.

Be carful about a ‘Consensus on the common good”. There may be a time when people who do not subscribe to Catholic morals and beliefs have a majority on what the “Common good” is. Oh wait! That’s already happened. Now you find yourself being victims of this same philosophy…gay marriage, abortion…etc. At least in a society that promotes real liberty you would always be free to practice our wonderful Catholic faith.

There is nothing in the belief of Libertarianism about making the rich richer. It is a simple belief in the non aggression principle. You may not initiate force against another. That includes electing someone to do it on your behalf.

Once again, no one is talking about making the rich richer. The belief is that I am responsible for myself. It is against the libertarian philosophy that I sit at home and vote to elect someone that will initiate force (taxes, regulations) and redistribute wealth I have not earned.

Minimum wage does not help the poor. It causes unemployment. In a true free market you would have more options on where to work and competition and growing market would cause competition for labor. Just creating a law that people get paid more does nothing to increase ones wealth. If I have a business and have a budget for labor of $15,000, just because some bureaucrat passes a law doesn’t mean I now have a bigger budget to spend. in fact, I probably have to lay someone off.

 

[ProVobis]

I have never heard of Ben Bemanke let alone heard anything to the contrary. Who is he?

The former Fed Chairman.

It’s interesting how people cut up the libertarians knowing nothing about the moral hazards perpetrated by the central banks.

 

[ProVobis]

I just came across this article. It looks like the only libertarian criticism was economic. This would not represent any new teaching as the Church has always opposed unrestricted capitalism. As far as Ayn Rand is concerned, I would think that would be a rather obvious contradiction to the call of Christ to charity.

I agree. But we’re not talking about Ayn Rand’s form of libertarianism, which, by the way she wasn’t quite sincere about, especially since eventually she decided to take Social Security. And neither was Alan Greenspan, who once advocated AR.

Yet her point about egalitarianism seems to be valid. There is no way to achieve that state either, as that would defy the law of distribution.

 

[minkymurph]

The former Fed Chairman.

It’s interesting how people cut up the libertarians knowing nothing about the moral hazards perpetrated by the central banks.

I can’t profess to know anything about moral hazards perpetrated by central banks in the US. In the UK I do know and as a consequence of the moral hazards perpetrated by central banks in the UK, the government had to take back control it previously relinquished. They loaned money they knew people couldn’t pay back, they charged massive fees that kept people in debt. The government had to take back control for the sake of the economy because the banks wrecked it. So much for no government interference when it comes to banks.

 

[minkymurph]

Be carful about a ‘Consensus on the common good”. There may be a time when people who do not subscribe to Catholic morals and beliefs have a majority on what the “Common good” is. Oh wait! That’s already happened. Now you find yourself being victims of this same philosophy…gay marriage, abortion…etc. At least in a society that promotes real liberty you would always be free to practice our wonderful Catholic faith.

It has happened. We live in a pluralist democracy. I can’t agree Catholics are not free to practice their faith. I firmly believe in freedom of religion and Catholics are not obliged to agree with gay marriage or abortion. I don’t see the law prevents us from holding the beliefs we do. However, in a pluralist democracy we do not have the authority to force those beliefs on others against their will. That is not freedom. On the issues you raise my view (personal) is we cannot rely on the ‘God says it is wrong’ argument as this argument only appeals to people who share our faith or our values. We need to do better and formulate arguments that would be difficult to refute irrespective of ones religious beliefs. Legislating on the basis of a religious belief alone is doomed to failure in a pluralist democracy for reasons I have stated. Like it or not, right or wrong, not everyone shares our faith.

That said, the issues you raise are serious ones and demonstrates how libertariamism fails. As you say, people do not subscribe to a common good on major issues. Libertarianism provides not viable solution to conflict on issues such as; gay marriage, euthanasia, surrogate parenting, patenting of human genes. If it does I would be interested to hear it. So, when we have conflict over these issues, the common good cannot be realized as there are different perceptions of what constitutes the common good.

There is nothing in the belief of Libertarianism about making the rich richer. It is a simple belief in the non aggression principle. You may not initiate force against another. That includes electing someone to do it on your behalf.

But it has been argued, not by you and you are free to explain further, libertarians argue making the rich richer is in everyone’s benefit. The trickle down effect. Can you explain the trickle down effect in absence of the rich getting richer? Or are you saying libertarians argue there is no need for the rich to get richer?

I was not under the impression libertarians advocated non-aggression. I was under the impression they advocated non-inference. My understanding is non-aggression is not the same thing as non-interference. One does not have to be aggressive to interfere. Interference can quite plausibly be non-aggressive. It can be subtle and manipulative.

Once again, no one is talking about making the rich richer. The belief is that I am responsible for myself. It is against the libertarian philosophy that I sit at home and vote to elect someone that will initiate force (taxes, regulations) and redistribute wealth I have not earned.

I thought libertarians were against the government redistributing wealth they had earned. Is this untrue? When you say responsible for myself, are you advocating autonomy? Does libertarianism not reject autonomy? I mean reject it in the sense we should restrain our lower impulses. Does libertarianism not argue we should be free to act on every whim? Is this compatible with Catholicism?

 

[minkymurph]

Minimum wage does not help the poor. It causes unemployment. In a true free market you would have more options on where to work and competition and growing market would cause competition for labor. Just creating a law that people get paid more does nothing to increase ones wealth. If I have a business and have a budget for labor of $15,000, just because some bureaucrat passes a law doesn’t mean I now have a bigger budget to spend. in fact, I probably have to lay someone off.

I agree. Just because a bureaucrat passes a law doesn’t mean you have a bigger budget. But, the question is, how big a budget do you need? (not you personally) From what you are saying I would understand your argument to mean if profits are down and you can lower the minimum wage accordingly, more people can stay in work. What about lowering the profit margin and more people can stay in work on the same wage? Would that be a bad thing? If people earn less than the poverty line and the government bails them out via food vouchers, can it be argued businesses are expecting the government to bail them out during an economic downturn so they can make the same profits? Yet, object to paying tax that goes towards the government hand out and still benefiting from the same labour? The minimum wage may mean lower profit in a bad year. It’s a question of who takes the hit. The employer in terms of profit, or the workforce in terms of salary? What side do you think Catholicism would come down on as the topic of this thread is the compatibility of libertarianism with Catholicism?

You say in a true free market you would have more options on where to work and competition and growing market would cause competition for labor. It’s a nice ideal and one that could operate to the benefit of those who sell their labour. Unfortunately it doesn’t not work in practice unless there are plenty of jobs. When employment is scare as a consequence of an economic downturn, serious limitations are imposed on those who sell their labour. Should their well being be sacrificed to maintain profit?

I appreciate it can plausibly be argued having more people employed but being paid less is better than fewer people employed yet paid more. But, the minimum wage is chicken feed to the average millionaire. If the reason for paying people on the minimum wage off is they can make, as a random example, three million profit as opposed to one million, can they not be satisfied with one million and keep people in work? Would that not be more in keeping with Catholicism?

 

[Bryan77]

First off, The church is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. Economics can be debated.

If you read about Austrian Economics (as opposed to the Keynesian model that is more often taught,) you will see that it a true free market works best.

Is Austrian Economics the best approach over Keynesian?? We are free to disagree on which is the best method of economics, and still be good Catholics.

But libertarianism goes against the church’s social teaching thus making them incompatible!

No it does not.

Abortion: Yes some libertarians say they are pro choice. I believe that Libertarianism and pro choice are incompatible. Abortion violates the nonaggression principle. People claim that libertarianism says that the government shouldn’t get involved in abortion. This is false. If abortion is murder (which it is) then the perpetrator of this violence must be dealt with.

“Let’s let the states deal with it” is what some libertarians propose. Well I agree! Abortion is murder, and thus should be treated as a murder, which means that the Federal government doesn’t get involved, but rather the state handles it just like every other murder.

Gay marriage: Yes the government should get out of marriage. The government doesn’t have the authority to marry anyways. We all know the church doesn’t see a civil marriage in a courthouse as valid, so that alone shows that the government doesn’t say what is and what isn’t marriage. If the government for some reason wouldn’t allow Catholics to marry, we would laugh, and do it anyways. We don’t need a piece of paper saying that we’re married. That’s foolishness.

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Even now where “gay marriage” is legal, we all know that they aren’t really married. They are two males with with some property/tax contracts, that happen to live together and engage in sexual activity. That’s not marriage.

Oh but libertarians are so caught up on their own property, and don’t care about the poor

That is completely false. Jesus called us to be charitable. How can we be charitable if that money is being taken from us through force? If someone is hungry, and I choose to give him money, or feed him, I am being charitable. However, if I send someone to take your money, and then give to the hungry person, that isn’t charity. That is stealing!

The real way to be charitable and care for the poor is to actually do it ourselves, not sit around and letting the government do it for us.

Side note:
Where I live, the minimum wage went up, and shortly after, we all see a noticeable increase in prices.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well said and true! Also your earlier post 118.

Pure libertarianism is exclusively focused on protecting the individual’s rights in the economic and social spheres. This conflicts with the Catholic notion of the common good, both economically and socially.

How so?

The state should not completely regulate the economy to impose equality and hinder individual prosperity

The state couldn’t impose equality if it wanted to. Not the kind you are talking about anyway.

I don’t believe that trickle down economics will ever produce enough wealth for enough people.

Seems like a faulty premise to me but we’ll just roll with it. I have a question. How is wealth created?

We need to have a fair, reasonable progressive tax rate (I wouldn’t put a millionaire any higher than 35-40%

Man you are generous.

This “hands off” social individualism is equally opposed to the common good and stability of society.

I’m afraid you misunderstand libertarianism. There is nothing wrong at all with people promoting the common good. The issue is when the government uses force to coerce people into serving whatever common good is in style at the moment.

 

[Seraphim73]

Here’s a good example of corporations using government to squash competition.

dailysignal.com/2014/06/09/3-major-u-s-airlines-fight-cancel-cheaper-international-travel/

Are the Department of transportation and U.S. officials making sure things are safe or are they doing the bidding of their donors?

It’s not just corporations. Any kind of government licensure is just a mechanism to reduce competition.